7 ms·

Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention.

Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention. Perhaps if dating is too time-intensive for these people, they should (somewhat) go back to arranged marriages. Also, if one otherwise has to go on many dates, arranged dates/marriages are probably less expensive. Finally, this should also increase the safety aspects that, according to the article, many young people fear.

deng 7y ago
> for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story For men, yes.
- wyoh 7y ago
  Why "for men". You think men are happier than women in arranged marriages?!
  - deng 7y ago
    > Why "for men". You think men are happier than women in arranged marriages?! As long as they have all the money and can have lovers, how is that even a question?
    - scarmig 7y ago
      Being responsible for making the money is different from having the agency to spend the money. It's fairly common for cultures to grant that role to the woman of the household. Not sure if that's the case in historic Germanic regions, but it's a crutch to take the principle "women are universally oppressed by men" and believe that's all you need in order to make any statement about gender across all of time and space.
      - deng 7y ago
        > Not sure if that's the case in historic Germanic regions It wasn't (aside from food and other common needs). > it's a crutch to take the principle "women are universally oppressed by men" I did not say that. The OP spoke of centuries where arranged marriages were common in Germany, and there's no doubt that women did not have equal rights during that time. The crutch here is to define "success of marriages" through fertility rates and number of divorces.
- rossenberg79 7y ago
  Men and women tend to be happier in arranged marriages. It is one of the best ways to find a high quality mate quickly.
  - deng 7y ago
    Do you even notice that you speak like a breeder?
    - rossenberg79 7y ago
      So what?
    - sctb 7y ago
      Come on, could you please not post vapid personal jabs here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dqybh 7y ago
  Men and women have the potential to be equally unhappy when you force a partner on them. Also, giving women free reign is causing great inequality between men and women in their chances of having a partner and forming a family, which I believe will be problematic in the future. Very well explained by this other user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19891412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19891412
  - ausbah 7y ago
    >Men and women have the potential to be equally unhappy when you force a partner on them. His point wasn't about happiness for either party, it was that men simply had more societal control and rights than woman at the time arranged marriages were common - so it wasnt so much a partnership as it was one party having a huge amount of control over the other party's autonomy. That may not be the case with arranged marriages today, but I think the historical trend points in that direction. >Also, giving women free reign is causing great inequality between men and women in their chances of having a partner and forming a family, which I believe will be problematic in the future. Very well explained by this other user: This is just sexist drivel, to me you're a.) making frankly unwarranted generalizations about how both genders date, b.) reiterating the shirt 80/20 meme spouted by right wing incels, and c) proposing a system that takes away both party's freedom of choice with relationships because it's "unfair" to men.
    - dqybh 7y ago
      >His point wasn't about happiness for either party, it was that men simply had more societal control and rights than woman at the time arranged marriages were common - so it wasnt so much a partnership as it was one party having a huge amount of control over the other party's autonomy. Meh, in my experience (Indians I know) females in both families have the same amount of power when choosing a mate, even more power than males I'd say. >This is just sexist Reality is sexist. Both genders are different. That's just the way it is. >making frankly unwarranted generalizations about how both genders date You have statistics here, which paint a broader picture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19601600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19601600 >reiterating the shirt 80/20 meme spouted by right wing incels Why is my argument bad? "People I don't like say the same thing" is not an argument. >proposing a system that takes away both party's freedom of choice with relationships because it's "unfair" to men I didn't propose that we go back to arranged marriages, and I agree that there's no easy solution. In fact I've got nothing to propose. The fact that there's no solution doesn't mean we should just pretend there's no problem.
tomp 7y ago
Isn't a bigger problem, what's the point of marriage, if it can be easily dissolved (with various, often completely unpredictable, risks for one or both parties)? Part of the idea of marriage, family, etc. is some concept (or at least illusion) of long-term safety, sustainability, predictability, stability. This illusion is slowly shattering, for different kind of reasons (divorce, problems with pensions, job security, chilling effects on free speech, gloomy outlook on climate change, ...). We probably need to start looking at these reasons, and start fixing them, i.e. address the underlying causes, not just fix the symptoms (less long-term relationships and marriage). Edit: that is not to say, that sometimes relationships don't dissolve for good reasons... but even then, more could be done to make things fair, predictable, etc. as opposed to incentivizing both parties, and their lawyers, to fight and be as mean and nasty to each other as possible.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention. There are cultures and countries for which this is true but Germany is not one of them. > The Western European marriage pattern is a family and demographic pattern that is marked by comparatively late marriage (in the middle twenties), especially for women, with a generally small age difference between the spouses, a significant proportion of women who remain unmarried, and the establishment of a neolocal household after the couple has married. In 1965, John Hajnal discovered that Europe is divided into two areas characterized by a different patterns of nuptiality. To the west of the line, marriage rates and thus fertility were comparatively low and a significant minority of women married late or remained single and most families were nuclear; to the east of the line and in the Mediterranean and particular regions of Northwestern Europe, early marriage and extended family homes were the norm and high fertility was countered by high mortality.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_patt...
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > > Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention. > There are cultures and countries for which this is true but Germany is not one of them. My grandmother (from Germany) told me how in former generations, it was not uncommon for parents to look out for marriage partners for their children. Formally, this is indeed not an arranged marriage, but de-facto, it mostly is/was. EDIT: Or even more indirectly, parents send/sent their children to social occasions where the child is very likely to meet the kind of marriage partners that the parents desire. To me, this still has a strong "smell" of (partly-)arranged marriage.
  - iguy 7y ago
    There are exceptions, and stories people tell, but GP is correct about the broad picture (in my understanding of the data). The west was unusual, and we have tended to misunderstand its past by looking at the more recent past of other societies. > parents send/sent their children to social occasions Absolutely people try to position their kids into the best social class they can. And still do, this is 90% of what parents house-shopping for "good schools" are doing, not to mention the great college admissions game. But this is not the same thing as an arranged marriage culture.
awaythrowwwww 7y ago
"Arranged marriages were quite a success story" If that were true people wouldn't automatically switch to love marriage when uncoerced. My experience of dating people from cultures where arranged marriage is still a (dwindling) thing tells me that no, they absolutely wouldn't go back to the days where it was prevalent. "But they learned to make do and be happy in the end!" is not an argument. It can be used to justify literally any practice, because people always strive to be happy even in the worst conditions. Seriously, what's with people wanting to coerce other people's romantic lives? When did we switch from "live and let live" to "the state should give me a girlfriend"?
- luckylion 7y ago
  > When did we switch from "live and let live" to "the state should give me a girlfriend"? Hey, if the state (that is: the people that pay taxes) should give you free food, housing, education, health care etc - why stop at romance?
DoctorOetker 7y ago
The article virtually states the youth are too busy trying to marry corporate life. When people start treating jobs like marriages (a nurtured ideology), this is what you get...

deng 7y ago

> for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story For men, yes.

wyoh 7y ago
Why "for men". You think men are happier than women in arranged marriages?!
- deng 7y ago
  > Why "for men". You think men are happier than women in arranged marriages?! As long as they have all the money and can have lovers, how is that even a question?
  - scarmig 7y ago
    Being responsible for making the money is different from having the agency to spend the money. It's fairly common for cultures to grant that role to the woman of the household. Not sure if that's the case in historic Germanic regions, but it's a crutch to take the principle "women are universally oppressed by men" and believe that's all you need in order to make any statement about gender across all of time and space.
    - deng 7y ago
      > Not sure if that's the case in historic Germanic regions It wasn't (aside from food and other common needs). > it's a crutch to take the principle "women are universally oppressed by men" I did not say that. The OP spoke of centuries where arranged marriages were common in Germany, and there's no doubt that women did not have equal rights during that time. The crutch here is to define "success of marriages" through fertility rates and number of divorces.
rossenberg79 7y ago
Men and women tend to be happier in arranged marriages. It is one of the best ways to find a high quality mate quickly.
- deng 7y ago
  Do you even notice that you speak like a breeder?
  - rossenberg79 7y ago
    So what?
  - sctb 7y ago
    Come on, could you please not post vapid personal jabs here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dqybh 7y ago
Men and women have the potential to be equally unhappy when you force a partner on them. Also, giving women free reign is causing great inequality between men and women in their chances of having a partner and forming a family, which I believe will be problematic in the future. Very well explained by this other user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19891412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19891412
- ausbah 7y ago
  >Men and women have the potential to be equally unhappy when you force a partner on them. His point wasn't about happiness for either party, it was that men simply had more societal control and rights than woman at the time arranged marriages were common - so it wasnt so much a partnership as it was one party having a huge amount of control over the other party's autonomy. That may not be the case with arranged marriages today, but I think the historical trend points in that direction. >Also, giving women free reign is causing great inequality between men and women in their chances of having a partner and forming a family, which I believe will be problematic in the future. Very well explained by this other user: This is just sexist drivel, to me you're a.) making frankly unwarranted generalizations about how both genders date, b.) reiterating the shirt 80/20 meme spouted by right wing incels, and c) proposing a system that takes away both party's freedom of choice with relationships because it's "unfair" to men.
  - dqybh 7y ago
    >His point wasn't about happiness for either party, it was that men simply had more societal control and rights than woman at the time arranged marriages were common - so it wasnt so much a partnership as it was one party having a huge amount of control over the other party's autonomy. Meh, in my experience (Indians I know) females in both families have the same amount of power when choosing a mate, even more power than males I'd say. >This is just sexist Reality is sexist. Both genders are different. That's just the way it is. >making frankly unwarranted generalizations about how both genders date You have statistics here, which paint a broader picture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19601600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19601600 >reiterating the shirt 80/20 meme spouted by right wing incels Why is my argument bad? "People I don't like say the same thing" is not an argument. >proposing a system that takes away both party's freedom of choice with relationships because it's "unfair" to men I didn't propose that we go back to arranged marriages, and I agree that there's no easy solution. In fact I've got nothing to propose. The fact that there's no solution doesn't mean we should just pretend there's no problem.

tomp 7y ago

Isn't a bigger problem, what's the point of marriage, if it can be easily dissolved (with various, often completely unpredictable, risks for one or both parties)? Part of the idea of marriage, family, etc. is some concept (or at least illusion) of long-term safety, sustainability, predictability, stability. This illusion is slowly shattering, for different kind of reasons (divorce, problems with pensions, job security, chilling effects on free speech, gloomy outlook on climate change, ...). We probably need to start looking at these reasons, and start fixing them, i.e. address the underlying causes, not just fix the symptoms (less long-term relationships and marriage). Edit: that is not to say, that sometimes relationships don't dissolve for good reasons... but even then, more could be done to make things fair, predictable, etc. as opposed to incentivizing both parties, and their lawyers, to fight and be as mean and nasty to each other as possible.

barry-cotter 7y ago

> Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention. There are cultures and countries for which this is true but Germany is not one of them. > The Western European marriage pattern is a family and demographic pattern that is marked by comparatively late marriage (in the middle twenties), especially for women, with a generally small age difference between the spouses, a significant proportion of women who remain unmarried, and the establishment of a neolocal household after the couple has married. In 1965, John Hajnal discovered that Europe is divided into two areas characterized by a different patterns of nuptiality. To the west of the line, marriage rates and thus fertility were comparatively low and a significant minority of women married late or remained single and most families were nuclear; to the east of the line and in the Mediterranean and particular regions of Northwestern Europe, early marriage and extended family homes were the norm and high fertility was countered by high mortality.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_patt...

wolfgke 7y ago
> > Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention. > There are cultures and countries for which this is true but Germany is not one of them. My grandmother (from Germany) told me how in former generations, it was not uncommon for parents to look out for marriage partners for their children. Formally, this is indeed not an arranged marriage, but de-facto, it mostly is/was. EDIT: Or even more indirectly, parents send/sent their children to social occasions where the child is very likely to meet the kind of marriage partners that the parents desire. To me, this still has a strong "smell" of (partly-)arranged marriage.
- iguy 7y ago
  There are exceptions, and stories people tell, but GP is correct about the broad picture (in my understanding of the data). The west was unusual, and we have tended to misunderstand its past by looking at the more recent past of other societies. > parents send/sent their children to social occasions Absolutely people try to position their kids into the best social class they can. And still do, this is 90% of what parents house-shopping for "good schools" are doing, not to mention the great college admissions game. But this is not the same thing as an arranged marriage culture.

awaythrowwwww 7y ago

"Arranged marriages were quite a success story" If that were true people wouldn't automatically switch to love marriage when uncoerced. My experience of dating people from cultures where arranged marriage is still a (dwindling) thing tells me that no, they absolutely wouldn't go back to the days where it was prevalent. "But they learned to make do and be happy in the end!" is not an argument. It can be used to justify literally any practice, because people always strive to be happy even in the worst conditions. Seriously, what's with people wanting to coerce other people's romantic lives? When did we switch from "live and let live" to "the state should give me a girlfriend"?

luckylion 7y ago
> When did we switch from "live and let live" to "the state should give me a girlfriend"? Hey, if the state (that is: the people that pay taxes) should give you free food, housing, education, health care etc - why stop at romance?

DoctorOetker 7y ago

The article virtually states the youth are too busy trying to marry corporate life. When people start treating jobs like marriages (a nurtured ideology), this is what you get...